Metallized polymeric film reflective insulation material

ABSTRACT

A method of thermally insulating an object that requires a Class A standard insulation material, said method comprising suitably locating a metallized polymeric reflective insulation material adjacent said object, wherein said polymeric material is selected from a closed cell foam, polyethylene foam, polypropylene foam, expanded polystyrene foam, multi-film layers assembly and a bubble-pack assembly. The object is preferably packaging, a vehicle or a residential, commercial or industrial building or establishment. The polymeric material may contain a fire-retardant and the bright surface of the metallized layer has a clear lacquer coating to provide anti-corrosion properties, and which meets commercial reflectance criteria.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.14/543,395 filed Nov. 17, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S.application Ser. No. 13/672,334 filed Nov. 8, 2012, now U.S. Pat. No.8,936,847 issued Jan. 20, 2015, which is a continuation of applicationSer. No. 13/086,193 filed Apr. 13, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,327,601issued Dec. 11, 2012, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No.11/808,380 filed Jun. 8, 207, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,935,411 issued May 3,2011, which is a CIP of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/507,658 filed Aug.22, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,935,410 issued May 3, 2011, which claimspriority to Canada Patent 2,544,298 issued May 19, 2006, and which ishereby incorporated into the present application in its entirety.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to metallized polymeric reflective insulationmaterial, particularly, bubble pack insulation material for use in anenvironment that requires a Class A standard insulation material,particularly, as packaging, and in vehicles, and, more particularly, inresidential, commercial and industrial buildings and establishmentscomprising a framed structure, walls, crawl spaces and the like, andwrapping for water heaters, pipes and the like.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Insulation materials are known which comprise a clean, non-toxic, heatbarrier made of aluminum foil bonded to polymeric materials.

Examples of such insulation materials, includes aluminum fail backingwith foam materials selected from closed cell foams, polyethylene foams,polypropylene foams and expanded polystyrene foams (EPS).

Alternative insulation materials in commercial use are made fromaluminum foil bonded to a single or double layer of polyethylene-formedbubbles spaced one bubble from another bubble in the so-called“bubble-pack” arrangement. Such non-foil bubble-packs are usedextensively as packaging material, whereas the metal foil bubble-pack isused as thermal insulation in wood frame structures, walls, attics,crawl spaces, basements and the like and as wrapping for hot waterheaters, hot and cold water pipes, air ducts and the like. Thereflective surface of the metal, particularly, aluminum foil enhancesthe thermal insulation of the air-containing bubble pack.

Organic polymers, such as polyethylene, are generally considered to behigh-heat-release materials. They can easily initiate or propagate firesbecause, on exposure to heat, they undergo thermal degradation tovolatile combustible products. If the concentration of the degradationproducts in the air is within flammability limits, they can igniteeither spontaneously, if their temperature is large enough, or by theeffect of an ignition source such as a spark or flame. The ignition ofpolyethylene can be delayed and/or the rate of its combustion decreasedby means of fire retardant materials.

The ultimate aim of fire retardants is to reduce the heat transferred tothe polymer below its limit for self-sustained combustion or below thecritical level for flame stability. This can be achieved by decreasingthe rate of chemical and/or physical processes taking place in one ormore of the steps of the burning process. One or a combination of thefollowing can achieve fire extinguishing:

1. creation of a heat sink by using a compound that decomposes in ahighly endothermic reaction giving non-combustible volatile products,which perform a blanketing action in the flame, e.g., aluminum ormagnesium hydroxide;

2. enhancements of loss of heat and material from the surface of theburning polymer by melt dripping, e.g., mixture of halogenated compoundswith free radical initiators;

3. flame poisoning by evolution of chemical species that scavenge H andOH radicals which are the most active in propagating thermo-oxidation inthe flame, e.g., hydrogen halides, metal halides, phosphorus-containingmoieties;

4. limitation of heat and mass transfer across the phase boundary,between thermal oxidation and thermal degradation by creation of aninsulating charred layer on the surface of the burning polymer, e.g.,intumescent chart; or

5. modification of the rate of thermal volatilization of the polymer todecrease the flammability of the volatile products; which approachstrongly depends, on the chemical nature of the polymer.

Fire retardant materials are generally introduced to the polyethylene asmerely additives or as chemicals that will permanently modify itsmolecular structure. The additive approach is more commonly used becauseit is more flexible and of general application.

Generally, low density polyethylene films of 1-12 mil, optionally, withvarious amounts of linear low density polyethylene in admixture whenadditional strength is required, are used for the above applications.The insulating properties of the bubble pack primarily arise from theair in the voids. Typically, bubble diameters of 1.25 cm, 0.60 cm and0.45 cm are present.

Regardless of the application method of fire retardant material(s), asatisfactory insulative assembly must have a fire rating of Class A witha flame spread index lower than 16, and a smoke development numbersmaller than 23. Further, the bonding of the organic polymer films andtheir aging characteristics must meet the aforesaid acceptablestandards. Yet further, the fabrication method(s) of a new fireretardant system or assembly should be similar to the existingtechnology with reasonable and cost effective modifications to theexisting fabrication system/technology. Still yet further, otherphysical properties of an improved fire standard system must at leastmeet, for example, the standard mechanical properties for duct materialsas seen by existing competitive products.

Fire retardant polyethylene films, wires and cables containing a fireretardant material in admixture with the polyethylene per se are knownwhich generally satisfy cost criteria and certain fire retardanttechnical standards to be commercially acceptable.

Conventional fire retardant additives are usually compounds of smallmolecular weights containing phosphorus, antimony, or halogens. The mosteffective commercially available fire retardant systems are based onhalogen-containing compounds. However, due to concerns over theenvironmental effects of such halogenated compounds, there is aninternational demand to control the use of such halogenated additives.

Some of the most common halogenated agents are methyl bromide, methyliodide, bromochlorodifluoromethane, dibromotetrafluoroethane,dibromodifluoromethane and carbon tetrachloride. These halogenated fireretarding materials are usually available commercially in the form ofgases or liquids. Unlike chlorine and bromine, fluorine reduces thetoxicity of the material and imparts stability to the compound. However,chlorine and bromine have a higher degree of fire extinguishingeffectiveness and, accordingly, a combination of fluorine and eitherchlorine or bromine is usually chosen to obtain an effectivefire-retarding compounds.

Other commercially available fire retardant materials that do notinclude halogens include boric acid and borate based compounds,monoammonium phosphonate, and urea-potassium bicarbonate.

Intumescent compounds which limit the heat and mass transfer by creatingan insulating charred layer on the surface of the burning polymer arealso considered fire retardant materials. A typical intumescent additiveis a mixture of ammonium polyphosphate and pentaerythritol.

Fire retardant additives are often used with organic polymer/resins.Typically, a brominated or chlorinated organic compound is added to thepolymer in admixture with a metal oxide such as antimony oxide.Halogenated compounds are also sometimes introduced into the polymerchain by co-polymerization. Low levels i.e. less than 1% W/W arerecommended to make adverse effects of halogen-based systems negligible.Another common fire retardant additive is diglycidyl ether ofbisphenol-A with MoO₃. Other additives to improve the fire retardingproperties of polyethylene include, for example, beta-cyclodextrin,magnesium hydroxide and alumina trihydrate, tin oxide, zinchydroxystannate, and chlorosulphonated polyethylene.

U.S. Pat. No. 6,322,873, issued Nov. 27, 2001 to Orologio, Furio,describes a thermally insulating bubble pack for use in framedstructures, walls, crawl spaces and the like; or wrapping for cold waterheaters, pipes and the like wherein the bubbles contain a fire retardantmaterial. The improved bubble pack comprises a first film having aplurality of portions wherein each of the portions defines a cavity; asecond film in sealed engagement with the first film to provide aplurality of closed cavities; the improvement comprising wherein thecavities contain a fluid or solid material. The flameretardant-containing bubble pack provides improved fire ratings, flamespread indices and smoke development numbers. The preferred embodimentsinclude a layer of metal or metallized film adjacent at least one of thefilms. However, the efficacious manufacture of the fire retardant-filledbubbles still represents a challenge.

Aforesaid bubble-packs not containing fire retardant materials andhaving a metallized film layer are known and used for externalinsulation around large self-standing structures, such as tanks, silosand the like, particularly in the oil and chemical industries, whichinsulation assembly does not have to meet the rigorous fire retardantstandards for insulation in framed structures of residential, commercialand industrial buildings, crawl spaces and the like or wrappings forcold water heaters, pipes and the like, therein.

Metallized films and their methods of production are well-known in theart. One technique is to evaporate an extremely thin layer of nearlypure aluminum onto a surface of the non-porous plastics material undervacuum by a so-called ‘vacuum metallizer’. Preferred metallized films ofuse in the practise of the invention are metallized aluminum coatedpolymer films, for example, metallized nylon, metallized polypropyleneand metallized polyester, preferably, for example, 48 gauge PET(polyethylene terephthalate).

There is, however, always the need for an insulation assembly, havingimproved fire retardant standards, particularly when safety buildingcodes are being continually improved.

Standards for many products are generally being raised to enhancesafety. This is true for reflective insulation materials for use inbuildings, which must meet minimum surface burning characteristics tosatisfy codes, such as CAN/ULC S201, UL723, ANSI No. 2.5, NFPA No. 255and 286, UBC 42-1, ASTM E84-05 and others. These tests cover two mainparameters, mainly, Flame Spread and Smoke Developed Values.

Such reflective insulation materials are classified as meeting theratings as follows:—

Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish Flame Speed Value Smoke Developed ValueClass A  0-25 0-450 Class B 26-75 0-450 Class C 76-200 0-450

The classification determines the environmental allowability of thereflective materials insulation. In this specification, Class A alsomeans Class 1.

The standard ASTM E84 and its variations tests, to date, have included,typically, the use of a hexagonal 50 mm steel wire mesh with 6 mmdiameter steel rods spaced at 610 mm intervals to support the insulationmaterials.

Without being bound by theory, the skilled persons in the art havediscovered that the aforesaid use of the wire mesh support in the testshas enabled some reflective insulation materials to satisfy the Class Astandard, whereas removal of the support in the test has caused thesematerials not to meet the standard.

Surprisingly, I have discovered that substitution of metallic foil,particularly, aluminum foil, with a metallized, particularly, aluminum,coating on an organic polymer layer, e.g. polyethylene and moreparticularly PET (polyethylene teraphthate), favourably enhances thesurface burning characteristics of the reflective insulation in theaforesaid ASTM E34 test in the absence of the wire mesh support. Thereason for this discovery is not, as yet, understood.

Further, I have discovered that the presence of a fire retardantcompound in or on one or more of the polymer layers of a reflectiveinsulation assembly further favourably enhances the surface burningcharacteristics of the insulation, and in preferred embodimentssignificantly enhances the safety of the assemblies as to satisfy thecriteria set in the most stringent “Full Room Burn Test for EvaluatingContribution of Wall and Ceiling Finishes to Room Fire Growth—NFPA 286.

Metallized polymeric films having an outer lacquer coating are known inthe foodstuff packaging industry in order to provide physical protectionto the ink printed on the outer metallic surface. Manual contact withthe unprotected inked material surface would cause inconvenience to theperson and possibly contamination of the foodstuffs, such asconfectionary and potato chips when handled by the person. Thelacquer-coated outer metallic surface overcomes this problem in thefoodstuff art.

Surprisingly, I have found that the most preferred metallized polymericfilm reflective insulation materials, particularly the fire-retardantcontaining assemblies, according to the invention provide improvedsafety towards fire and also acceptable reflectance and anti-corrosiveproperties.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of the present invention to provide metallized polymericfilm reflective insulation material having Class A thermal insulationproperties, particularly, metallized bubble pack insulation material foruse in an environment that requires a Class A standard insulationmaterial, particularly, as packaging, and in vehicles, and moreparticularly in residential, commercial and industrial buildings andestablishments having framed structures, walls, crawl spaces and thelike, and wrapping for water heaters, pipes and the like having improvedfire retardant properties.

It is a further object to provide a method of thermally insulating anaforesaid vehicle, building or establishment with a Class A standardmetallized polymeric reflective insulation material having improvedfire-retardant properties.

In yet a further object, the invention provides an improvedthermally-insulated vehicle, building or establishment having a Class Astandard metallized polymeric reflective insulation material.

The invention is also of value in other jurisdictions having fire safetystandards relating to insulation material.

Thus, the term “Class A standard insulation material” includes theequivalent or approximate equivalent standard set by InternationalAgencies of individual countries, trade blocks, such as the EuropeanUnion, and the like.

Accordingly, the invention in one aspect provides a method of thermallyinsulating an object that requires a Class A standard insulationmaterial, said method comprising suitably locating a metallizedpolymeric reflective insulation material adjacent said object, whereinsaid polymeric material is selected from a closed cell foam,polyethylene foam, polypropylene foam, expanded polystyrene foam,multi-film layers assembly and a bubble-pack assembly.

Without being limiting, the object is preferably selected from the groupconsisting of vehicles and residential, commercial and industrialbuilding and establishment.

The term ‘vehicle’ includes, for example, but not limited to,automobiles, buses, trucks, train engines and coaches, ships and boats.

The invention provides in a further aspect, a method of thermallyinsulating a residential, commercial or industrial building with ametallized polymeric material, said method comprising locating saidmetallized polymeric material within a frame structure, crawl space andthe like, or wrapping water heaters, pipes, and the like, within saidbuilding, wherein said polymeric material is selected from a closed cellfoam, polyethylene foam, polypropylene foam, expanded polystyrene foamand a bubble-pack assembly.

The invention provides in a further aspect a method of thermallyinsulating a residential, commercial or industrial building with abubble-pack assembly, said method comprising locating said bubble packwithin a framed structure, wall, crawl space and the like, or wrappingwater heaters, pipes and the like within said building; and wherein saidbubble-pack assembly comprises a first thermoplastic film having aplurality of portions wherein each of said portions defines a cavity; asecond film in sealed engagement with said first film to provide aplurality of closed said cavities; and at least one layer of metallizedthermoplastic film.

The terms “cavity” or “cavities” in this specification include voids,bubbles or other like closed spaces. The cavities may be formed of anydesired suitable shapes. For example, semi-cylindrical, oblong orrectangular. However, a generally, hemi-spherical shape is preferred.

Most surprisingly, I have found that the use of at least one layer ofmetallized thermoplastic film provides enhanced fire retardantproperties over those having only a corresponding layer(s) of aluminumfoil, in the bubble-pack assembly.

In a further aspect, the invention provides a method as hereinabovedefined wherein said bubble-pack assembly comprises

(i) a first bubble pack having a first thermoplastic film having aplurality of portions wherein each of said portions defines a cavity anda second thermoplastic film in sealed engagement with said first film toprovide a plurality of closed said cavities; and(ii) a second bubble-pack having a third thermoplastic film having aplurality of portions wherein each of said portions defines a cavity anda fourth thermoplastic film in sealed engagement with said third film toprovide a plurality of closed said cavities; provided that when said atleast one of said layers of metallized thermoplastic film is interposedbetween and bonded to said first bubble pack and said second bubblepack, said assembly comprises at least one further metallizedthermoplastic film.

In a further aspect, the invention provides a method as hereinabovedefined wherein said bubble-pack assembly comprises

(i) a first bubble pack having a first thermoplastic film having aplurality of portions wherein each of said portions defines a cavity anda second thermoplastic film in sealed engagement with said first film toprovide a plurality of closed said cavities; and(ii) a second bubble-pack having a third thermoplastic film having aplurality of portions wherein each of said portions defines a cavity anda fourth thermoplastic film in sealed engagement with said third film toprovide a plurality of closed said cavities;(iii) a metallized thermoplastic film interposed between and bonded tosaid first bubble pack and said second bubble pack; and wherein at leastone of said first second, third, fourth or additional thermoplasticfilms contains an effective amount of a fire-retardant material.

The assembly, as hereinabove defined, may have at least one outer layerof metallized thermoplastic film, or, surprisingly, one or more inner,only, layers.

The assembly may, thus, further comprise at least one or a plurality ofadditional thermoplastic films.

Further, I have found that the use of a fire-retardant material in anyor all of the thermoplastic films of the assembly enhances thefire-retardant properties of the assembly.

Accordingly, in a further aspect, the invention provides a bubble-packassembly comprising

(i) a first thermoplastic film having a plurality of portions whereineach of said portions defines a cavity;

(ii) a second film in sealed engagement with said first film to providea plurality of closed said cavities; and

(iii) at least one layer of a metallized thermoplastic film; and whereinat least one of said first or second films contains an effective amountof a fire-retardant.

In a further aspect, the invention provides a bubble-pack assemblycomprising

(i) a first bubble pack having a first thermoplastic film having aplurality of portions wherein each of said portions defines a cavity anda second thermoplastic film in sealed engagement with said first film toprovide a plurality of closed said cavities; and(ii) a second bubble-pack having a third thermoplastic film having aplurality of portions wherein each of said portions defines a cavity anda fourth thermoplastic film in sealed engagement with said third film toprovide a plurality of closed said cavities; and a film selected from ametallized thermoplastic film interposed between said second and fourththermoplastic films and laminated thereto by heat-sealing to providesaid composite bubble pack assembly.

Further, the metallized thermoplastic film may also contain afire-retardant material to further enhance the assemblies'fire-retardant properties. A preferred fire-retardant material isantimony oxide, preferably used at a concentration of 10-20% w/w film.

The thermoplastic films may be formed of any suitable polymer orcopolymer material. The first and second film may be formed of the sameor different material. Most preferably, the bubble pack has each of thefilms formed of a polyethylene.

The metallized thermoplastic film is preferably a polyester, and, morepreferably, a polyethylene terephthate having a metal coating.

The fire retardant material may be a compound or composition comprisingone or more compounds having acceptable fire retardant properties.

The amount of fire retardant material is such as to provide anefficacious amount in relation to the amount of plastic and othercomponents present in the bubble pack. Thus, the amount of fireretardant material required will depend on the application of theassembly, the type and effectiveness of the fire retardant materialused, the final properties required e.g. flame spread index, slowburning or self-extinguishing, and the bubble size. The fire retardantis generally present in an amount selected from 0.1-70% w/w, morepreferably, 10-60% w/w, preferably 15-20% w/w in relation to thethermoplastic film.

Examples of suitable fire retardants of use in the practice of theinvention, include those classes and compounds as hereinbeforedescribed. Preferably, the fire retardant compound is selected fromalumina trihydrate (ATH, hydrated aluminum oxide, Al₂O₃.3H₂O), oxides ofantimony, decabromodiphenyl oxide and mixtures of these compounds,optionally with a dimethyl siloxane fluid (DC200).

The bubble-pack further comprises one or more organic polymer filmsmetallized with a suitable metal, for example, aluminum to enhancereflection of infra-red radiation.

Thus, while the most preferred plastics material for the bubble andlaminated layers is polyethylene, particularly a low-densitypolyethylene, optionally, in admixture with a linear low densitypolyethylene, of use as aforesaid first and second films, the metallizedorganic polymer is a polyester, preferably polyethylene teraphthalate.

The number, size and layout of the bubbles in the pack according to theinvention may be readily selected, determined and manufactured by theskilled artisan. Typically, in a single pack, the bubbles are arrayed ina coplanar off-set arrangement. Each of the hemi-spherical bubbles maybe of any suitable diameter and height protruding out oldie plane of thebonded films. Typically, the bubble has a diameter selected from 0.5cm-5 cm, preferably 0.8-1.5 cm; and a height selected from 0.2 cm-1 cm,preferably 0.4-0.6 cm. A preferred bubble pack has an array of about 400bubbles per 900 cm².

The multi-film layers may comprise a plurality of thermoplastic films,wherein one of said films may be in the form of a woven layer, such asfor example, a scrim.

In one embodiment of the metallized polymeric film reflective insulationlayer according to the invention, comprising a woven, i.e. scrim layer,each of the faces of the scrim are laminated to a metallized film, andeach of both outer faces of the metallized layers has a lacquer coating.

In a further aspect, the invention provides an object, particularly, avehicle or a residential, commercial or industrial building orestablishment insulated with a metallized polymeric material,particularly, a multi-film layer or bubble-pack assembly, according tothe invention.

Surprisingly, I have also discovered that a clear polymeric lacquercoating applied to the metallic layer having the higher reflectivity(bright) surface as the outer layer provides a protective layer tomanual handling without significant loss of reflectance.

I also have found that a suitable and effective thickness of the lacquerpolymeric coating can provide satisfactory anti-corrosion protection tothe metal surface and still allow of sufficient reflectance as to meetthe emissivity standard as set by the industry. A reflectance of greaterthan 95% has been maintained for preferred embodiments of the clearlacquer-coated metallized polymeric reflective insulation materials,according to the invention. A preferred lacquer comprises an acrylicpolymer or copolymer, for example, polymethyl methacrylate, particularlyhaving a molecular weight of 80,000-150,000. More, preferably, anitrocellulose solvent based lacquer is applied to the metallizedpolymer.

Thus, by anti-corrosion effective clear lacquer in this specification ismeant that the layer coating has a sufficient thickness to provideeffective anti-corrosion protection to the metallalized layer whileproviding an emissivity reading of no more than 0.04, i.e. that at least96% of thermal radiation is reflected from that face. A typical lacquercoating is selected from 0.25 to 0.35 g/m², preferably about 0.30 g/m².

Accordingly, in a further aspect the invention provides a metallizedpolymeric reflective film insulation material, as hereinabove definedand having a metallic coating outer layer having a clear lacquercoating.

The clear lacquer coating may be applied to the highest reflectancesurface, i.e. the bright side, of the metallic surface by techniques,such as by brushing, spraying, deposition and the like, as is well-knownin the art. Preferred lacquers are clear, cross-linked polymerswell-known in the art.

I have also found that preferred embodiments of the aforesaidlacquer-coated, metallized polymeric insulative materials according tothe invention satisfactorily meet the industry's corrosivity standards.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In order that the invention may be better understood, preferredembodiments will now be described by way of example only, with referenceto the accompanying drawings wherein

FIG. 1 represents diagrammatic, exploded section views of ametallized-double bubble-white polyethylene, with fire retardant,assembly according to the invention (Example 1);

FIG. 2 represents the assembly of FIG. 1 without fire retardant beingpresent, according to the invention (Examples 2 and 3);

FIG. 3 represents a diagrammatic, exploded sectional view of ametallized-single bubble-white polyethylene without fire retardantassembly, according to the invention (Example 4);

FIG. 4 represents a diagrammatic, exploded sectional view of ametallized-double bubble-metallized assembly without fire retardant,according to the invention (Example 5);

FIG. 5 represents a diagrammatic, exploded sectional view of ametallized-double bubble-metallized assembly with fire retardant,according to the invention (Example 6);

FIG. 6 represents a diagrammatic, exploded view of an aluminumfoil-single bubble-aluminum foil-scrim without fire retardant accordingto the prior art (Example 7);

FIG. 7 represents a diagrammatic, exploded view of an aluminumfoil-single bubble-aluminum foil with fire retardant reflectiveinsulation assembly, not according to the invention (Example 8);

FIG. 8 represents a diagrammatic, exploded view of an aluminumfoil-single bubble-white poly with fire retardant not according to theinvention (Example 9);

FIG. 9 represents an exploded view of a metallized-doublebubble-metallized-double bubble-metallized assembly having fireretardant, according to the invention (Example 10);

FIG. 10 represents an exploded view of a metallized double bubble-whitepolythene with fire retardant assembly, according to the invention(Example 11);

FIG. 11 represents an exploded view of a metallized-singlebubble-metallized without fire retardant assembly, according to theinvention (Example 12);

FIG. 12 represents an exploded view of an aluminum foil-single bubblecontaining fire retardant not according to the invention (Example 13);

FIG. 13 represents an exploded view of an aluminum foil-doublebubble-aluminum foil, according to the prior art (Examples 14 and 15);

FIGS. 14, 15 and 16 are diagrammatic, exploded sectional views of abubble-pack, scrim laminated insulation blanket, according to theinvention; and

FIG. 17 is a clear lacquer-coated metallized embodiment of FIG. 3.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

FIG. 14 is a bubble-pack-scrim laminated blanket assembly havingpolyethylene layers 112, 114, 116 and 118 and scrim layer 126 with nylontapes 124 laminated between layers 112 and 114. Adhered to outer layer112 is a metallized PET layer 12.

FIGS. 15 and 16 represent the embodiment of FIG. 14 but, additionally,having an aluminum foil layer 122 laminated to layer 112 in FIG. 15, andto layer 118, via a polyethylene layer 136 in FIG. 16.

The following numerals denote the same materials throughout thedrawings, as follows:—

-   -   12—48 gauge aluminum metallized polyester (PET) film;    -   14—adhesive;    -   16—1.2 ml polyethylene film;    -   18—2.0 ml polyethylene film (bubbled);    -   20—1.2 ml ethylene vinyl acetate-polyethylene film;    -   22—2.0 ml polyethylene film;    -   24—aluminum foil;    -   26—polyester scrim;    -   FR denotes 18% w/w antimony oxide fire retardant;    -   W denotes presence of TiO₂ pigment (white).

The bubble pack layer is preferably of a thickness selected from 0.5 cmto 1.25 cm. The other polyethylene layers are each of a thickness,preferably, selected from 1 to 6 mls.

The fire retardant material of use in the preferred embodiments wasantimony oxide at a concentration selected from 10-20% w/w.

Insulation material No. 1 was a prior art commercial single bubble packassembly of a white polyethylene film (1.2 mil) laminated to apolyethylene bubble (2.0 mil) on one side and aluminum foil (0.275 mil)on the other.

Insulation material No. 2 was a metallized polymeric material of use inthe practise of the invention in the form of as bubble pack as formaterial No. 1 but with the aluminum foil substituted with metallizedaluminum on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (48 gauge) adhered tothe polyethylene bubble.

Test

A blow torch was located about 10-15 cm away from the insulationmaterial (5 cm×10 cm square) and directed at each of the aluminumsurfaces.

Results

Single Bubble Aluminum Foil.

Material No. 1 started to burn immediately and continued burning untilall organic material was gone. Flame and smoke were extensive.

Single Bubble Metallized Aluminum Material.

For material No. 2, where the flame was directly located, a hole wasproduced. However, the flame did not spread outwards of the hole orcontinue to burn the material. Flame and smoke were minimal.

Conclusion.

Single Bubble metallized material reacts better to the flame, that isthe material burned where the flame was situated but did not continue toburn.

Clearly, this test shows the advance of the metallized insulationmaterial according to the invention over its prior art aluminum foilcounterpart.

Examples 1 and 2 Underwent Full Room Burn Tests

Example 1

This Example illustrates the testing of the bubble-pack assembly shownin FIG. 1—being commonly known as a metallized-double bubble-white poly(FR) in accordance with NFPA 286 Standard Methods of Fire Tests forEvaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room FireGrowth. The test material was mounted on the LHS, rear, RHS walls to aheight of the test room as well as the ceiling of the test room. Thesample did not spread flames to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.The flames did not spread to the extremities of the walls during the 160kW exposure. The sample did not exhibit flashover conditions during thetest. NFPA 286 does not publish pass/fail criteria. This specimen didmeet the criteria set forth in the 2003 IBC Section 803.2.1.

The test was performed by Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc., Elmendorf,Tex., 78112-984; U.S.A.

This method is used to evaluate the flammability characteristics offinish wall and ceiling coverings when such materials constitute theexposed interior surfaces of buildings. The test method does not applyto fabric covered less then ceiling height partitions used in openbuilding interiors. Freestanding panel furniture systems include allfreestanding panels that provide visual and/or acoustical separation andare intended to be used to divide space and may support components toform complete work stations. Demountable, relocatable, full-heightpartitions include demountable, relocatable, full-height partitions thatfill the space between the finished floor and the finished ceiling.

This fire test measures certain fire performance characteristics offinish wall and ceiling covering materials in an enclosure underspecified fire exposure conditions. It determines the extent to whichthe finish covering materials may contribute to fire growth in a roomand the potential for fire spread beyond the room under the particularconditions simulated. The test indicates the maximum extent of firegrowth in a room, the rate of heat release, and if they occur, the timeto flashover and the time to flame extension beyond the doorwayfollowing flashover.

General Procedure

A calibration test is run within 30 days of testing any material asspecified in the standard. All instrumentation is zeroed, spanned andcalibrated prior to testing. The specimen is installed and the diffusionburner is placed. The collection hood exhaust duct blower is turned onand an initial flow is established. The gas sampling pump is turned onand the flow rate is adjusted. When all instruments are reading steadystate conditions, the computer data acquisition system and videoequipment is started. Ambient data is taken then the burner is ignitedat a fuel flow rate that is known to produce 40 kW of heat output. Thislevel is maintained for five minutes at which time the fuel flow isincreased to the 160 kW level for a 10-minute period. During the burnperiod, all temperature, heat release and heat flux data is beingrecorded every 6 seconds. At the end of the fifteen minute burn period,the burner is shut of and all instrument readings are stopped. Post testobservations are made and this concludes the test.

All damage was documented after the test was over, using descriptions,photographs and drawings, as was appropriate.

Digital color photographs and DV video taping were both used to recordand documents the test. Care was taken to position the photographicequipment so as to not interfere with the smooth flow of air into thetest room.

The test specimen was a metallized/double bubble/white poly (FR)insulation. Each panel measured approximately 4 ft. wide×8 ft. tall×⅛in. thick. Each panel was white in color. The insulation was positionedusing metal C studs every 2 ft. o.c. with the flat side of the studfacing the interior of the room. The insulation was attached to the Cstuds using screws and washers.

All joints and corners in the room were sealed to an airtight conditionusing gypsum drywall joint compound and/or ceramic fiber insulation.

The data acquisition system was started and allowed to collect ambientdata prior to igniting the burner and establishing a gas flow equivalentto 40 kW for the first 5 minutes and 160 kW for the next 10 minutes.Events during the test are described below:

TIME (min:sec) OBSERVATION 0:00 Ignition of the burner at a level of 40kW. 0:20 Specimen surface began to melt. 0:45 The specimen began to meltat 4 ft. above the specimen. 0:55 Ignition of the specimen at themelting edge. 1:25 Melting of the specimen at 8 ft. above the testburner. 3:20 Ignition of the specimen at the RHS edge of melt pattern.3:38 Flaming drops began to fall from the specimen. 4:00 Burning onmetal side of specimen only. 5:00 Burner output increased to 160 kW.5:18 Specimen began to rapidly melt away. 5:25 The specimen began tomelt away at 6 ft. from the test corner. 6:20 No burning of the specimenobserved. 8:20 Material fell in front of the doorway. 9:00 TC # 5 fellin front of the doorway. 12:00  No new activity. 14:00  No changesobserved in the specimen. 15:00  Test terminated.Post Test Observations:

The specimen was completely melted on the top portions along all threewalls. On the lower LHS wall, the specimen was still intact and appearedto have no visible damage. The lower rear wall appeared to have melting4 ft. from the test corner, with the specimen intact from 4-8 ft fromthe test corner. The lower RHS wall was melted 4 ft. from the testcorner and appeared intact hum 4 ft to the doorway. The specimen on theceiling panels was observed to have been 100% melted.

Conclusion

The sample submitted, installed, and tested as described in this reportdisplayed low levels of heat release, and upper level temperatures. Thesample did not spread flames to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.The flames did not spread to the extremities of the 12-foot walls duringthe 106 kW exposure. The sample did not exhibit flashover conditionsduring the test. NFPA 286 does not publish pass/fail criteria. One mustconsult the codes to determine pass fail. This specimen did meet thecriteria set forth in the 2003 IBC Section 803.2.1.

Example 2

The test described under Example was repeated but with a metallizeddouble bubble/white poly not containing fire retardant as shown in FIG.2.

The sample did not spread flames to ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.The flames did spread to the extremities of the walls during the 106 kWexposure. The sample did not exhibit flashover conditions during thetest. NFPA 286 does not publish pass/fail criteria. However, thisspecimen did not meet the criteria set forth in the 2003 IBC Section803.2.1.

Events during the test are described below:

TIME (min:sec) OBSERVATION 0:00 Ignition of the burner at a level of 40kW. 0:14 Specimen surface began to melt. 0:20 The edge of the specimenignited. 0:38 The specimen began to melt 6-7 ft. above theburner/flaming drops began to fall from the specimen. 1:21 Flame spreadat 2 ft. horizontally at 4 ft. above the test burner. 2:31 Flame spreadat 4 ft. horizontally at 4 ft. above the test burner. 3:50 The specimenon the ceiling began to fall. 4:24 The specimen began to fall from thecorners and ceiling. 5:00 Burner output increased to 160 kW/specimencontinuing to fall. 5:57 Flame spread at 6 ft. horizontally at thebottom of the 8 ft. wall. 7:10 Flames reached 8 ft. along the 8 ft.wall. 8:38 Flames on the LHS wall reached 10 ft. from the test corner.9:40 Flames on the LHS wall reached 12 ft. extremity. 10:38  Testterminated.Post Test Observations:

The specimen was 100% melted from the C studs along all the walls. Thegypsum board behind the specimen was flame bleached and charred in thetest corner. Along the rear wall, the bottom of the wall was charred thelength of the wall. On the RHS wall, 5 ft. of specimen was still intactnear the doorway. The insulation on the LHS wall was melted completelywith the exception of a small 2 ft. section attached to the C stud nearthe doorway. The insulation on the ceiling was 100% melted exposing theC studs.

Conclusion

The sample submitted, installed, and tested as described in this reportdisplayed low levels of heat release, and upper level temperatures. Thesample did not spread flames to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.The flames did spread to the extremities of the 12-foot walls during the160 kW exposure. The sample did not exhibit flashover conditions duringthe test. NFPA 286 does not publish pass/fail criteria. One must consultthe codes to determine pass-fail. This specimen did not meet the verystrict criteria set forth in the 2003 IBC Section 803.2.1.

Test Standard Method—ASTME 84-05

Examples 3-6 underwent tests carried out in accordance with TestStandard Method ASTME84-05 for Surface Burning Characteristics ofBuilding Materials, (also published under the following designationsANSI 2.5; NFPA 255; UBC 8-1 (42-1); and UL723).

The method is for determining the comparative surface burning behaviourof building materials. This test is applicable to exposed surfaces, suchas ceilings or walls, provided that the material or assembly ofmaterials, by its own structural quality or the manner in which it istested and intended for use, is capable of supporting itself in positionor being supported during the test period.

The purpose of the method is to determine the relative burning behaviourof the material by observing the flame spread along the specimen. Flamespread and smoke density developed are reported. However, there is notnecessarily a relationship between these two measurements.

It should be noted that the use of supporting materials on the undersideof the test specimen may lower the flame spread index from that whichmight be obtained if the specimen could be tested without such support.This method may not be appropriate for obtaining comparative surfaceburning behaviour of some cellular plastic materials. Testing ofmaterials that melt, drip, or delaminate to such a degree that thecontinuity of the flame front is destroyed, results in low flame spreadindices that do not relate directly to indices obtained by testingmaterials that remain in place.

Table 1 gives detailed observations for the experiments conducted inExamples 3 to 15.

Example 3

The test specimen consisted of (3) 8 ft. long×24 in. wide×1.398 in.thick 17.50 lbs metallized/double bubble/white poly (No-FR) reflectiveinsulation, assembly of FIG. 2 secured to 1.75 in. wide×1 in. thick,aluminum frames using ¾ in. long, self-drilling, hex head screws andwashers. The nominal thickness of the reflective insulation was 5/16 in.thick. The white poly was facing the flames during the test. Thespecimen was self-supporting and was placed directly on the inner ledgesof the tunnel.

The test results, computed on the basis of observed flame front advanceand electronic smoke density measurements were as follows.

Flame Spread Smoke Test Specimen Index Developed Index Mineral FiberCement Board 0 0 Red Oak Flooring 85 75 Test Specimen 5 5

This metallized-double bubble-white poly having no fire-retardantassembly of FIG. 2 was most acceptable in this E84-05 test to permit usein Class A buildings.

During the test, the specimen was observed to behave in the followingmanner:

The white poly facer began to melt at 0:05 (min:sec). The specimenignited at 0:07 (min:sec). The insulation began to fall from thealuminum frames at 0:08 (min.sec.). The test continued for the 10:00duration. After the test burners were turned off, a 60 second afterflame was observed.

After the test the specimen was observed to be damaged as follows:

The specimen was consumed from 0 ft.-9 ft. The white poly facer wasmelted from 19 ft.-24 ft.

Example 4

This embodiment is a repeat of Example 3, but with a metallized/singlebubble/white poly (No-FR) reflective insulation assembly as shown inFIG. 3 substituted for the material described in Example 3.

Specimen Description

The specimen consisted of (3) 8 ft. long×24 in. wide×1.100 in. thick16.60 lbs metallized/single bubble/white poly (No-FR) reflectiveinsulation, secured to 1.75 in. wide×1 in. thick, aluminum frames using¾ in. long, self-drilling, hex head screws and washers. The nominalthickness of the reflective insulation was 3/16 in. thick. The whitepoly was facing the test burners. The specimen was self-supporting andwas placed directly on the inner ledges of the tunnel.

Flame Spread Smoke Test Material Index Developed Index Mineral FiberCement Board 0 0 Red Oak Flooring 85 75 Specimen 5 0

During the test, the specimen was observed to behave in the followingmanner:

The poly facer began to melt at 0:03 (min/sec). The poly facer ignitedat 0:06 (min:sec). The insulation began to fall from the aluminum framesat 0:07 (min:sec). The insulation ignited on the floor of the apparatusat 0:07 (min:sec). The test continued for the 10:00 duration.

After the test the specimen was observed to be damaged as follows:

The insulation was consumed from 0 ft.-20 ft. The poly facer was meltedfrom 20 ft.-24 ft. The polyethylene bubbles were melted from 20 ft. to24 ft.

Example 5

This embodiment is a repeat of Example 3, but with a metallized/doublebubble/metallized (No FR) reflective insulation substituted for thematerial described in Example 3.

Specimen Description

The specimen consisted of (3) ft. long×24 in. wide×1.230 in. thick 17.40lbs metallized/double bubble/metallized no FR reflective insulationassembly of FIG. 4, secured to 1.75 in, wide×1 in. thick, aluminumframes using ¾ in, long, self-drilling, hex head screws and washers. Thenominal thickness of the reflective insulation was 5/16 in. thick. Thespecimen was self-supporting and was placed directly on the inner ledgesof the tunnel.

Flame Spread Smoke Test Material Index Developed Index Mineral FiberCement Board 0 0 Red Oak Flooring 85 75 Test Specimen 5 15

During the test, the specimen was observed to behave in the followingmanner:

The metallized insulation began to melt at 0:06 (min:sec). Themetallized insulation began to fall from the aluminum frame at 0:10(min.sec.). The metallized insulation ignited at 0:11 (min.sec). Thetest continued for the 10:00 duration. After the test burners wereturned off, a 19 second after flame was observed.

After the test, the specimen was observed to be damaged as follows:

The metallized insulation was consumed from 0 ft.-16 ft. Thepolyethylene bubbles were melted from 16 ft.-24 ft. Light discolorationwas observed to the metallized facer from 16 ft.-24 ft.

This metallized-double bubble-metallized assembly of FIG. 4 met the E84standard for building reflective insulation.

Example 6

This embodiment is a repeat of Example 5, but with a metallized/doublebubble/metallized (FR) reflective insulation assembly as seen in FIG. 5substituted for the material described in Example 5, FIG. 4.

The specimen consisted of (3) 8 ft. long×24 in. wide×1.325 in. thick17.70 lbs metallized/double bubble/metallized (FR) reflective insulationassembly, secured to 1.75 in, wide×1 in. thick, aluminum frames using %in, long, self-drilling, hex head screws and washers. The nominalthickness of the reflective insulation was 5/16 in. thick.

Flame Spread Smoke Test Materials Index Developed Index Mineral FiberCement Board 0 0 Red Oak Flooring 85 75 Test Specimen 5 15

During the test, the specimen was observed to behave in the followingmanner:

The metallized facer began to melt at 0:04 (min:sec.). The specimenignited at 0:06 (min:sec.). The metallized insulation began to fall fromthe aluminum frames at 0:11 (min:sec). The floor of the apparatusignited at 6:41 (min:sec). The test continued for the 10:00 duration.After the test burners were turned off, a 60 second after flame wasobserved.

After the test the specimen was observed to be damaged as follows:

The insulation was consumed from 0 ft.-16 ft. The polyethylene bubbleswere melted from 16 ft.-24 ft. Light discoloration was observed to themetallized facer from 16 ft.-24 ft.

The metallized-double bubble-metallized (FR) reflective insulationassembly of FIG. 5 passed this ASTM E84-05 test for Class A buildinginsulation.

In the following embodiments Examples 7-9, less stringent ASTM E84 testconditions were employed.

Example 7

An aluminum foil-single bubble-aluminum foil/poly with polyester scrimreflective insulation assembly, without a fire-retardant was stapled tothree 2×8 ft. wood frames with L-bars spaced every 5 feet O.C. wastested. The reflective insulation was secured to the L-bars by usingself-drilling screws.

-   -   Flame Spread Index 50    -   Smoke Developed index 50        This material failed this ASTM E84 test.

Example 8

Aluminum foil-single bubble-aluminum foil with fire-retardant reflectiveinsulation assembly was stapled to (3) 2×8 ft. wood frames, L-bar crossmembers on 5 ft. centers, stapled to wood on sides and screwed to L-bar.The sample was self-supporting. This assembly as shown in FIG. 7, failedthis E84 test conditions for building insulations, for having a flamespread index of 55 and a smoke developed index of 30.

Example 9

Aluminum foil-single bubble-white poly (FR) as shown in FIG. 8 wasattached to nominal 2×2 wood frames with L-bar cross members spacedevery 5 ft. O.C. The sample was self-supporting.

The specimen had a flame speed index of 65 and a smoke developed indexof 75 to not be acceptable as Class A building material.

The following embodiments describe ASTM 84-05e1 Surface BurningCharacteristics of Building Materials.

Example 10

The following modified ASTM E84-05e1 test was designed to determine therelative surface burning characteristics of materials under specifictest conditions. Results are again expressed in terms of flame spreadindex (FSI) and smoke developed (SD).

Summary of Test Procedure

The tunnel was preheated to 150° F., as measured by the floor-embeddedthermocouple located 23.25 feet downstream of the burner ports, andallowed to cool to 105° F., as measured by the floor-embeddedthermocouple located 13 ft. from the burners. At this time, the tunnellid was raised and the test sample placed along the ledges of the tunnelso as to form a continuous ceiling 24 ft. long, 12 inches. above thefloor. The lid was then lowered into place.

Upon ignition of the gas burners, the flame spread distance was observedand recorded every 15 seconds. Flame spread distance versus time isplotted ignoring any flame front recessions. If the area under the curve(A) is less than or equal to 97.5 min.-ft., FSI=0.515 A; if greater,FSI=4900/(195−A). Smoke developed is determined by comparing the areaunder the obscuration curve for the test sample to that of inorganicreinforced cement board and red oak, arbitrarily established as 0 and100, respectively.

The reflective insulation was a metallized-double bubble-metallizedassembly with fire-retardant, as shown in FIG. 9. The material had avery acceptable OFSI and 85 SD.

Observations of Burning Characteristics

The sample began to ignite and propagate flame immediately upon exposureto the test flame.

The sample did not propagate past the base line.

Maximum amounts of smoke developed were recorded during the early statesof the test.

Example 11

The test conditions were as for Example 10 but carried out with ametallized/bubble/single bubble, white (FR) as shown in FIG. 10,substituted for the material of Example 10.

The white face was exposed to the flame source. The material had a veryacceptable 0 FSI and 65 OS.

Observations of Burning Characteristics

The sample began to ignite and propagate flame immediately upon exposureto the test flame.

The sample did not afford a flame front propagation.

Maximum amounts of smoke developed were recorded during the early statesof the test.

Example 12

The test conditions were as for Example 10 but carried out with ametallized-single bubble as shown in FIG. 11, substitute for thematerial of Example 10.

The test material had a very accept 0 FSI and 30 SD.

Observations of Burning Characteristics

The sample began to ignite and propagate flame immediately upon exposureto the test flame.

The sample did not afford a flame front propagation.

Maximum amounts of smoke developed were recorded during the early statesof the test.

Example 13

The test conditions were as for Examples 7-9, with a self-supportingaluminum foil-single bubble containing fire retardant as shown in FIG.12. An unacceptable FSI of 30 and a SDI of 65 was observed.

Example 14

The test was conducted under ASTM E84-00a Conditions in Jan. 22, 2002,with layers of aluminum foil-double bubble-aluminum foil, according tothe prior art as shown in FIG. 13. The specimen consisted of a 24″wide×24′ long× 5/16″ thick (nominal) 3.06 lbs sheet of reflectiveinsulation—foil/double PE bubble/foil. The specimen was tested with a ⅛″wide×24′ long second of the foil facer removed from the center to exposethe core material directly to the flames.

Results

Flame Spread Smoke Developed Test Specimen Index Index Mineral FiberCement Board  0 0 Red Oak Flooring n/a 100 Sample 115 20

During the test, the specimen was observed to behave in the followingmanner:

Steady ignition began at 0:35 (min:sec). Flaming drops began to fallfrom the specimen at 0:45 and a floor flame began burning at 0:46. Thetest continued for the 10:00 duration. Upon completion of the test, themethane test burners were turned off and an after flame continued toburn for 0:19.

After the test, the specimen was observed to be damaged in the followingmanner:

The specimen was slightly burned through from 1 ft. to 3 ft. The PEbubble was melted from 0 ft. to 24 ft. and the foil facer had a blackdiscoloration on it from 2 ft. to 24 ft.

The sample was supported on ¼″ steel rods and 2″ galvanized hexagonalwire mesh id not meet the criteria see for this E84-00a test for abuilding insulation.

Example 15

This example was a repeat of Example 14.

Results

Flame Spread Smoke Developed Test Specimen Index Index Mineral FiberCement Board  0 0 Red Oak Flooring n/a 100 Sample 65 35

During the test, the specimen was observed to behave in the followingmanner:

Steady ignition began at 0:54 (min:sec). Flaming drops began to fallfrom the specimen at 0:58 and a floor flame began burning at 1:03. Thetest continued for the 10:00 duration.

After the test, the specimen was observed to be damaged as follows:

The foil was 80% consumed from 1 ft. to 3 ft. and lightly discolouredfrom 3 ft. to 24 ft. The bubble core was melted/collapsed from 0 ft. to24 ft.

Although the results were an improvement over Example 14 material, theywere still not satisfactory.

TABLE EXAMPLE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 Specimen Data Time to 7 6 11 6 7 328 9 35 54 Ignition (sec.) Time to Max 23 22 26 23 64 81 38 28 284 191 FS(sec.) Maximum FS 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.0 10.7 11.8 12.1 5.5 19.5 14.5 (feet)Time to 980° F. NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR (sec) Max 447 416 482 476470 561 582 520 728 711 Temperature (° F.) Time to Max 597 600 596 565599 82 48 594 316 127 Temperature (sec) Total Fuel 51.44 51.26 51.5751.17 50.75 50.65 50.81 50.61 39.47 35.82 Burned (cubic feet) FS* Time6.0 7.4 6.2 9.6 99.8 104.2 117.1 53.5 153.1 121.0 Area (ft * min) SmokeArea 2.3 1.1 3.2 10.8 41.7 26.5 65.0 53.4 22.2 33.4 (% A * min) FuelArea 3971.3 3668.6 4283.0 4324.4 4271.2 5035.3 5032.7 4554 5608.3 5556.9(° F. * min) Fuel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 Contributed Value Unrounded 3.13.8 3.2 4.9 51.5 54.0 62.9 27.5 117.0 66.2 FSI *Never ReachedCalibration Data Time to 44 44 44 44 41 41 41 41 50 55 Ignition of LastRed Oak (sec.) Red Oak 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 85.0 85.0 85 85 100.00101.02 Smoke Area (% A * min) Red Oak Fuel 8972 8972 8972 8972 8128 81288128 8128 8548 9763 Area (° F. * min) Glass Fiber 5065 5065 5065 50655443 5443 5443 5443 5311 5178 Board Fuel Area (° F. * min)

Example 16

Standard Surface Emittance (reflectivity) tests (ASTM C1371-04a—“Standard Test Method for Determination of Emittance ofMaterials near Room Temperature Using Portable Emissometers”) with theembodiments shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 17 gave a measured emittance of0.30 (65% reflectance) for the dull surface of the metallized coated PETmaterial and a value of 0.06 (96% reflectance) for the shiny surface.

The 0.5 ml thick nitrocellulose solvent based lacquer coated metallizedcoated PET surface also gave an acceptable reflectance of 96%.

The lacquer layer 150 provides suitable, anti-corrosion protection.

Example 17

The test specimen was a self-supporting rFoil reflective insulation,metallized/double bubble/white poly (m/db/polyethylene)-Non-FR productof (3) 8-ft. long×24 in. wide×1.2450 in. thick, radiant barrier securedto galvanized metal frames using hex head screws. The white polyethylenewas exposed to flame with air gap toward the tunnel lid.

-   -   Conditioning (73° F. & 50% R.H.): 18 days    -   Specimen Width (in): 24    -   Specimen Length (ft): 24    -   Specimen Thickness: 1.2450 in.    -   Material Weight: N/A oz./sq. yd    -   Total Specimen Weight: 16.7 lbs.    -   Adhesive or coating application rate: N/A        Comparative Test Results

E84 (10 Minute) E84 (10 Minute) NFPA 703 Flame Spread Smoke (30 Minute)Index Developed Index ft. Fiber Cement Board 0 0 N/A Red Oak Flooring105 105 N/A Test Specimen 5 15 N/ASpecimen Data

-   -   Time to Ignition (sec): 7    -   Time to Max FS (sec): 277    -   Maximum FS (feet): 0.8    -   Time to 980 F (sec): Never Reached    -   Time to End of Tunnel (sec): Never Reached    -   Max Temperature (F): 565    -   Time to Max Temperature (sec): 208    -   Total Fuel Burned (cubic feet): 49.35    -   FS*Time Area (ft*min): 5.7    -   Smoke Area (% A*min): 17.0    -   Unrounded FSI: 3.0        Calibration Data    -   Time to Ignition of Last Red Oak (sec): 42.0    -   Red Oak Smoke Area (% A*min): 111.0        Observations

During the test, the specimen was observed as follows.

The reflective insulation began to melt at 0:05 (min:sec). Thereflective insulation ignited at 0:07 (min:sec). Flaming drops wereobserved at 0:08 (min:sec). The floor of the apparatus ignited at 0:10(min:sec). The test continued for the 10:00 duration. After the testburners were turned off, a 60 second afterflame was observed.

After the test the specimen was observed to be damaged as follows.

The reflective insulation was consumed from 0 ft.-5 ft. The reflectiveinsulation was melted from 5 ft.-24 ft.

Example 18

The specimen was a rFoil (white poly/single bubbled/metallized), nominal5/16 inches thick. Metal 2 in.×4 in. C studs were placed every two feeton the walls and ceiling with the flat side of the stud facing the wall.The specimen was attached to the flat surfaces of the C studs usingscrews and washers spaced no closer than 2 ft. o.c. All joints andcorners in the room were sealed to an airtight condition using gypsumdrywall joint compound and/or ceramic fiber insulation.

Test Procedure and Results

At an ambient temperature, of 49° F. with a relative humidity of 82%,the thermocouples and other instrumentation were positioned inaccordance with the standard and their outputs verified after connectiontoo the data acquisition system. The data acquisition system was startedand allowed to collect ambient data prior to igniting the burner andestablishing a gas flow equivalent to 40 kW for the first 5 minutes and160 kW for the next 10 minutes. Events during the test are describedbelow

TIME (min:sec) OBSERVATION 0:00 Ignition of the burner at a level of 40kW. 0:16 The insulation began to melt. 1:09 Flaming drops began to fallfrom the specimen. 1:40 Ignition of the specimen at the first horizontalc-stud. 3:39 Ignition of the specimen on the RHS wall/flaming dropscontinued to fall. Flame spread approximately 1 ft. along the RHS wall.5:00 The test burner was increased to 160 kW. 5:17 The specimen began tomelt 2 ft. from the test burner/sporadic ignition of the specimen. 5:47The ceiling panels began to peel away 5:50 Ignition of the specimenreached 4 ft. above the burner. 6:15 Flame spread along the RHS wallapproximately 2 ft. 8:14 Flame spread along the RHS wall approximately 3ft. 9:28 Flames along the second stud, above the test burner ceased.10:30  Flame spread along the RHS wall at 4 ft. 11:15  The ceilingpanels melted 8 ft. from the test burner. 11:30  Along the back wall,the flame spread reached 3 ft. 13:40  Flames began to reach 6 ft. along,the RHS wall/The LHS flame spread reached 3 ft. 15:00  The test burnerwas turned off/test terminated.Post Test Observations

Along the back wall, the specimen was flame bleached approximately 8 ft.above the test burner. The panels were melted 4 ft. horizontally alongthe wall. The top panel along the wall was completed melted. Theremaining sections were still in tact along the c-studs. The top panelalong the LHS wall, was completely melted approximately 11.5 ft. fromthe room corner. The remainder of the panels were intact but slightlymelted and showed some discoloration. The specimen along the RHS wallwas flame bleached to the ceiling and melted horizontally 3-4 ft. fromthe rest corner. The top panel along the RHS wall was completely meltedextending the entire length of the wall. The remaining panels wereintact and slightly discolored. The ceiling panels were completelymelted extending the entire length of the room.

Conclusion

The sample displayed low levels of heat release and upper leveltemperatures. The sample did not spread flames to the ceiling during the40 kW exposure. The flames did not spread to the extremities of the12-foot walls during the 160 kW exposure. The sample did not exhibitflashover conditions during the test.

Example 19

Total Hemispherical Emittance Test

This example describes the test and results of measuring the emittanceof an aluminum metallized PET containing 15% w/w antimony oxidelire-retardant reflective insulation film having a nitrocellulosecoating of 0.3 g/m², according to the invention.

The test protocol was in accordance With ASTMC 1371-04a “Standard TestMethod for Determination of Emittance of Materials near Room TemperatureUsing Portable Emissometers”.

The results were obtained using a Model AE emissometer manufactured byDevices and Services Company of Dallas, Tex. The emissometer is poweredto provide a warm-up time prior to use. A warm-up time of one hour isconditioned laboratory has beers found to be acceptable. Calibration athigh and low emittance was performed after the warm-up period. Testspecimens were placed in good contact with the thermal sink that waspart of the apparatus. A drop of distilled water between the testspecimen and the thermal sink improved the thermal contact. Themeasurement head of the emissometer was placed on the test specimen andheld in place for 90 seconds for each measurement. The apparatusprovided emittance to two decimal places.

Observations

The emissometer was calibrated prior to use and calibration was verifiedat the end of testing. The reported emittance is the average of threemeasurements.

Specimen Description Average Emittance Metallized film (Shiny side) 0.03Metallized film (Dull side) 0.52Uncertainty

The 95% reproducibility as stated in Section 10 of ASTM C 1371-04a is0.019 units.

The result shows the acceptable emittance property of the test material,according to the invention.

Example 20

Corrosiveness Test

This example describes the test and results of measuring the corrosivityof the metallized PET fire-retardant reflective insulation film as usedin Example 19.

The test protocol was in accordance with “ASTM D3310-00 “Standard TestMethod for Determining of Corrosivity of Adhesive Materials”.

Samples of the Metallized Film (Sample 2A) one embedded in adhesive andone without adhesive, were placed in a screw can jar with an inert capliner. The caps were tightened and the jars placed in a forced draftcirculating oven at 71±2° C. These samples were used as controls. Asecond set of samples, one embedded in adhesive and one withoutadhesive, were placed in a similar jar each with a small open jar halffilled with distilled water. The second jars were also tightly closedand placed in the oven. The samples were removed and examined afterintervals of 1, 3 and 7 days in the oven.

Results Without Water With Water 1 day 2 2 3 days 2 2 7 days 2 2WhereinRating Scale1. —Exposed sample less tarnished than control2. —Exposed sample same as control3. —Exposed sample slightly worse than control4. —Exposed sample significant worse than control5. —Exposed sample badly corroded

Example 21

A series of experiments were conducted to develop a fire resistantreflective insulation material meeting Class A and Class 1 flameresistant standards.

The following series of tests consisted of locating the flame of ablowtorch at a distance of about 10-20 cm away from 1 m×1 m sample filmand observing whether the burnt with a flame and disintegrated in itsentirety, or merely melted at a localized spot without a flame.

Whenever an exposed polymer film face was present in the sample theblowtorch was directed on that surface because it is the polymer surfacethat is exposed to the interior of the walls and ceiling of a buildingand which surface is generally, initially, subject to a fire within thebuilding.

Series A

The sample consisted of the following layers:

1. (Single Bubble) aluminum foil (2.75 Mil)

-   -   adhesive    -   polyethylene film (1.2 Mil)    -   polyethylene bubble (2 Mil)    -   polyethylene film (2 Mil)        2. (Double Bubble)    -   aluminum foil (2.75 Mil)    -   adhesive    -   polyethylene film (1.2 Mil)    -   polyethylene bubble (2 Mil)    -   EVA (1.2 Mil)    -   polyethylene bubble (2 Mil)    -   polyethylene film (1.2 Mil)        3. (Single Bubble)    -   aluminum foil (2.75 Mil)    -   adhesive    -   polyethylene film (1.2 Mil)    -   polyethylene bubble (2.0 Mil)    -   polyethylene film (1.2 Mil)    -   adhesive    -   aluminum foil (2.75 Mil)        4. (Double Bubble)    -   aluminum foil (2.75 Mil)    -   adhesive    -   polyethylene film (1.2 Mil)    -   polyethylene bubble (2.0 Mil)    -   EVA (1.2 Mil)    -   Polyethylene bubble (2.0 Mil)    -   Polyethylene film (1.2 Mil)    -   Adhesive    -   Aluminum foil (2.75 Mil)        Series B

The above tests were repeated with various amounts (5-20% w/w) ofvarious FR (fire retardant) compounds present in each of the polymerfilms.

Series C

The above tests under Series A and Series B were repeated on the samesamples but with heavier gauge aluminum foil ranging up to 5.00 Mil.

Results

In all of the above tests, the product failed as determined by the totaldisintegration with a burning flame in less than 10 seconds.

Series D

It was, initially, believed that the inadequacy of the product insatisfying the regulatory burn test was due, solely, to the polymer, andthat the foil had no part in the destruction of the product.Accordingly, because of the financial cost and inconvenience inpreparing such foil products for testing, a series of tests weresubsequently conducted on polymer films in the absence of an aluminumfoil layer, while varying the nature and amounts of FR compounds in thepolymer.

Test 1.

Analogous films to those of Series A and Series B without an aluminumfoil layer were subjected to the blowtorch test.

Results

Most surprisingly, the blowtorch flame caused the film to merely melt atthe localized spot to create a typical 8-10 cm hole—with no burning. Thesize of the hole did not increase unless the torch was re-directed.

These observations and surprising results showed the tests to be highlysuccessful.

Test 2.

The films of Series D—Test 1 were then adhesively laminated withaluminum foil to provide reflective products and tested.

Results

The products having a foil backing with the blowtorch directed on thepolymer surface, lit-up extensively, burnt and disintegrated.

Test 3.

Samples of the foil-backed films of Test 2 were then delaminated bypeeling to remove the foil and tested.

Results

The results were as satisfactory as seen in Series D—Test 1.

Conclusion 1

That the presence of the aluminum foil in the sample product causes theproduct to fail the burn test. The reason for this is not known.

Series E

A series of burn tests with analogous products to those samples inSeries A and Series C but having the adhesive bonded foil layersubstituted with a 2 Mil metallized PET (polyethylene terephthate),metallized polyethylene, or polypropylene layer were tested.

Results

The samples did not burn, flame or disintegrate, but merely incurred thetypical 8-10 cm hole.

Conclusion 2

That a metallized polymer layer is, most surprisingly, superior to andaluminum foil adhered layer in reflective polymer insulation, andsatisfies the Class A and Class 1 standards.

Although this disclosure has described and illustrated certain preferredembodiments of the invention, it is to be understood that the inventionis not restricted to those particular embodiments. Rather, the inventionincludes all embodiments, which are functional or mechanical equivalenceof the specific embodiments and features that have been described andillustrated.

I claim:
 1. A reflective insulation product comprising: a metallizedthermoplastic film comprising a fire-retardant chemical, the metallizedthermoplastic film having a clear anti-corrosion coating on a metallizedsurface thereof; and a polymeric material on a side of the metallizedthermoplastic film such that the metallized anti-corrosion-coatedsurface of the thermoplastic film is exposed, the polymeric materialcomprising a fire-retardant chemical; wherein the reflective insulationproduct is foil-free, has flexibility for wrapping applications, and ischaracterized by a flame speed rating value of from 0 to 25 when testedwithout wire mesh support.
 2. The product of claim 1 wherein the productis characterized by a smoke developed rating value of 0 to
 450. 3. Theproduct as claimed in one of claim 1, wherein the exposedanti-corrosion-coated surface of the metallized thermoplastic film has asurface emissivity of no more than 0.04.
 4. The product as claimed inone of claim 1 wherein a reflectance of the exposedanti-corrosion-coated metallized surface is equal to or greater than95%.
 5. The product as claimed in one of claim 1 wherein the clearanti-corrosion coating is a polymeric lacquer coating.
 6. The product ofclaim 1 wherein the polymeric material comprises a multilayer assembly.7. The product of claim 1 wherein the polymeric material comprises abubble pack assembly.
 8. The product of claim 1 wherein the polymericmaterial comprises a scrim layer.
 9. The product of claim 1 wherein thepolymeric material comprises a multi-layer assembly, the multi-layerassembly free of a foam layer.
 10. The product of claim 1, wherein theclear anti-corrosion coating comprises an acrylic polymer or an acryliccopolymer.
 11. The product of claim 1, wherein the anti-corrosioncoating comprises a clear, nitrocellulose solvent-based lacquer coating.12. The product of claim 7, wherein the anti-corrosion coating comprisesan acrylic polymer or an acrylic copolymer.
 13. The product of claim 7,wherein the anti-corrosion coating comprises a clear, nitrocellulosesolvent-based lacquer coating.
 14. The product of claim 8, wherein theclear anti-corrosion coating comprises an acrylic polymer or an acryliccopolymer.
 15. The product of claim 8, wherein the anti-corrosioncoating comprises a clear, nitrocellulose solvent-based lacquer coating.16. The product of claim 9, wherein the clear anti-corrosion coatingcomprises an acrylic polymer or an acrylic copolymer.
 17. The product ofclaim 9, wherein the anti-corrosion coating comprises a clear,nitrocellulose solvent-based lacquer coating.
 18. The product of claim1, wherein the polymeric material and the thermoplastic film are bonded.19. A reflective insulation product comprising: a thermoplastic filmcomprising a flame-retardant chemical and having a metallized coating,the thermoplastic film having an anti-corrosion coating on the metalizedcoating, the anti-corrosion coating comprising an acrylic polymer, anacrylic copolymer, or a nitrocellulose coating; and a polymeric materialcomprising a flame-retardant chemical, the polymeric material on a sideof the thermoplastic film such that the anti-corrosion coating isexposed; wherein the reflective insulation product is foil-free, ischaracterized by a smoke developed rating value of 0 to 450 and by aflame speed rating value of from 0 to 25, when tested without wire meshsupport.
 20. The reflective insulation product of claim 19, wherein thepolymeric material is a multi-layer assembly.